REKHA GUPTA

        This revision challenges the order dated 24.05.2012 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 2267 of 2011.

2.     The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that he is the registered owner of residential premises bearing no. 17-8-514/15 at Sheethal Apartments, Maria Nagar, Mangalore which was purchased by means of a registered sale deed on 15.05.1997. The earlier owner of the said premises Mr V L Rego had issued a letter dated 27.03.1998 to the respondent to transfer the Khatha into petitioner’s name after purchase. After the said letter, the Khatha was changed into petitioner’s name as per the respondent’s letter dated 10.11.2009. The petitioner paid a security deposit and other fees totalling to Rs.1620/- on 02.11.2009 to the respondent company. Thereafter, he was regularly paying the electricity bills issued by the respondent and up to 04.03.2010 the petitioner had paid all the electricity bills without any dues. All of a sudden the respondent disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner’s residential premises without giving any prior notice which amounts to deficiency of service. Due to disconnection of the electricity, the petitioner had suffered heavy loss of Rs.25,000/- as a result of loss of rent. The petitioner immediately sent a written notice to the respondent on 24.09.2010 requesting to do the needful but the respondent failed to supply the electricity. Thereafter, the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act sought information as to the reason for disconnection of the electricity supply to the petitioner’s house. The respondent replied through a letter dated 28.10.2010. Since, the respondent had disconnected the electricity without prior notice, they were deficient in service and he prayed for restoration of the electricity along with a compensation for deficiency of service.

3.     On receipt of notice, the respondent filed their written version and contended that on the basis of the letter issued by one Mr V L Rego, they have transferred JL no. 224 in the name of the petitioner and it was false to say that they have disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner’s premises. In fact, they had not at all given any electricity connection to the petitioner’s premises bearing D No. 17-8-514/15. The owner of the flat no. 12 Ms Kavitha Alva having a D No. 17-8-514 had written a letter dated 24.02.2010 to change the JL no. 224 in her name. After verifying the records submitted by Ms Kavitha Alva, the said Khatha was changed into her name and after re-verification it was found that the flat no. 15 measuring 162 sq.ft never had any electricity connection at all. It was further, learnt that, the entire Sheethal Apartments had 16 electricity connections. The building had only 14 flats. Out of the 16 connections, 14 connections had  been given to each of the flats and one for the pump and another for the stair case/ common areas lightings. Apart from these 16 connections no electricity connection had been given to any Room no. 15, which was the premises of the petitioner. The said premises was situated on the ground floor of the building. Therefore, they have not disconnected the electricity supply to the petitioner and there was no deficiency of service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     The Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 15^th July 2011 while dismissing the complaint observed as under:

“On going through the documents produced by the complainant and opposite party, it is observed that V L Regu had sold 162 sq ft of premises to the complainant in the Flat no. 12 which bears door no. 17-8-514/15. Subsequent to the sale of the said premises, the complainant got transferred the electricity khatha into his name. The said meter number is JL 224 to the said door number. After the sale deed, the premises of the complainant was given a door no. 17-8-514/15 and subsequent to the sale of the said 162 sq ft. The said V L Rego also sold the entire premises measuring 910 sq ft to the Kavitha Alva and she wrote a letter to the opposite party for transfer of the electricity into her name. The said sale deed is produced by opposite party, wherein we noted that the entire flat no. 12 which bearing the RR No. JL 224 was transferred to Kavitha Alva. Whereas, the complainant says that he has purchased 162 sq ft from V L Rego which is numbered as 17-8-514/15. After that the said premises become independent from flat no. 12. The complainant as per the rules has to apply for separate connections (new connection), whereas he has not done so. He simply made application for transfer for electricity Khatha of JL 224 into his name and he was paying electricity as an extended supply to his premises and he has not taken a new connection. The opposite party basing on the letter given by a subsequent owner of flat no. 12 for changed the khatha into the subsequent owner of flat no. 12. The complainant has to automatically will not receive the electricity supply from the said flat no. 12. If at all he wants the electricity he has to apply for a new connection to his premises. Therefore, the question of disconnection will not arise, at all and there is no consumer dispute arose in the complaint. The complainant has failed to establish that he is having a separate electricity connection which was disconnected. Therefore, we found there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As such we answer point no. (i) and (ii) in the negative and the complaint is dismissed”.

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/ complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 24.05.2012, while dismissing the appeal has confirmed the order of the District Forum dated 15.07.2011 and observed as under:

“In view of the fact that the appellant has purchased a portion of the flat no. 12 from Mr Rego and the appellant ought to have been taken separate electricity connection to his house. The records placed on record by both the parties, before the District Forum discloses that Mr V L Rego sold the entire premises measuring 910 sq ft to Mrs Kavitha Alva and she wrote a letter to the respondent for transfer of Khatha in her name, whereas the appellant herein stated to have been purchased only 162 sq ft of premises of flat no. 12. Therefore, the respondent is justified in disconnecting the electricity supply to the portion of the house premises of the flat no. 12. When the entire house was sold by V L Rego to Mrs Kavitha Alva and whereas this Kavitha has requested the respondent to transfer khatha in her name, restoration of supply of electricity supply in the name of appellant does not arise. Since there is a dispute with regard to the title of the property stated to have been purchased by the appellant from V L Rego and also Mrs Kavitha Alva unless the appellant proves that he has purchased the entire property bearing flat no. 12 for which electricity connection has been obtained by his vendor. Therefore, issuance of prior notice to disconnect the electricity supply does not arise. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Hence, appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we pass the following:

Appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in complaint no. 317 of 2010”.

6.     Hence, the present revision petition.

7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is not maintainable because he is the rightful owner and in-spite of the order on record the State Commission has ignored the facts that one V L Rego had sold 162 sq ft of premises to the petitioner in flat no. 14 which bears Door no. 17-8-514/15 to the petitioner. Subsequent to the sale of the said premises, the petitioner got transferred the electricity Khatha into his name. The said meter no. JL 224 is to the said door number. Despite these accepted facts, the respondent without having given notice to the petitioner changed and transferred the electricity connection in the name of Ms Kavitha Alva being the flat no.12.

8.     Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, argued in favour of the impugned order and stated that it was based on the correct appreciation of facts that the petitioner owned no flat in the building. He purchased a room on the ground floor which had no electricity connection. The petitioner by misrepresentation had managed to get the electric connection no. JL 224 transferred to his name.

9.     On a careful perusal of the record, we find that as per the sale deed dated 15.05.1997 the petitioner and his wife purchased a room from Mrs Cicilia Lobo in Sheethal, Pumpwell, Kankandi, Mangalore for Rs.74,500/-. The sale agreement gives the address as Mrs Cicilia Lobo, a resident of Sheethal without giving any flat number or address. Thereafter, the petitioner vide an undated letter sent an application to the Assistant Executive Engineer for transfer of the unit RR JL 224 to his name. This letter was supported by a letter from Shri V L Rego which is addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer, K EB Attavara, Mangalore which reads as under:

        “Dear Sir,

This is to bring to your knowledge that the connection of electricity has been moved from the RR JL 224 at Sheethal Apartment, Veppro, Mangalore.

This RR number along with the room is owned by Mr Melvilla Pinto who has purchased it from Mrs Cicilia Lobo.

May I request you to kindly do the needful and connect the line to  meter immediately and oblige.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely

[ V L Rego ]”

10.    Based on this application a power supply agreement was entered into on 09.07.2011 giving the electricity connection to the petitioner. It is seen from the application that there are several mis-representations. He has indicated his address as Door no. 117-8-514, Flat no.15, Sheethal Apartment. He has, further, asked to transfer the connection from V L Rego’s name to his name, whereas he had bought a room from Mrs Cicilia Lobo. The sale agreement nowhere speaks off the transfer of the meter or electricity connection to the petitioner. As per sale agreement, he only had the right for an undivided shares in the common area and facilities. It is only, when Smt Kavitha Alva submitted an application for shifting of JL 224 from the name of Mr Melvin Pinto to her name that the matter was looked into by the respondent. The respondents in the written statement before the District Forum stated as under:

5.     It is submitted that one Mrs Kavitha Alva owner of Flat no. 12, measuring 910 sq. ft bearing Door no. 17-8-514 written a letter dated 24.02.2010 to change JL no. 224 in her name. After verifying the records submitted by Mrs Kavitha Alva, it has been changed in her name and after re-verification it has come to the knowledge of the OP that to Flat no. 15, measuring 162 sq. ft, no electricity connection was given by the OP. Since, the documents submitted by Smt Kavitha Alva found to be correct RR No. JL 224 was changed in her name.

6.     It is submitted that the entire Sheethal Apartments is having 16 nos. MESCOM connections. The building is having 14 flats, out of 16 connections, 14 connections have been given to 14 flats, one for pump connection and another for stair case/ common area lightings and no electricity connection has been given to room no. 15 of the complainant, which is situated in the Ground Floor of the building.”

11.    It was in these circumstances, that the said connection was disconnected in February 2010 and given it to Mrs Kavitha Alva on 23.02.2010. Here, it may be mentioned that Smt Kavitha Alva had bought the flat no. 12, Sheethal Apartments from Mr V L Rego. Mr V L Rego as per the sale deed, placed on record, was residing at flat no. 12, Sheethal Apartment, Jeppu, Mangalore. He had bought the property from Mr Gilbert Paul Nazarath. Thereafter, Mr Rego had constructed the multi-storied building consisting of several apartments in Ground Floor and three Upper Floors with a view to dispose of the various apartments along with proportionate undivided right, title and interest in the Schedule ‘A’ land. It is Mr Rego who sold the flat no. 12 to Mrs Kavitha Alva. However, the petitioner had bought his room not from Mr Rego, but from Mrs Cicilia Lobo, through her general power of attorney Mr V L Rego. The sale agreement deed of Mrs Kavitha Alva also states as under:

“Likewise, the purchaser is entitled to have the electricity meter transferred in her name or get the fresh connection in her name in respect of the schedule ‘B’ apartment and pay the electricity bill directly to the Electricity Department and she is also entitled for water connection and liable to pay the charges thereof.”

12.    From this makes it clear that the petitioner had bought a room on the ground floor which had no separate electricity connection. By mis-representing and with the support of Shri Rego he managed to get the connection JL 224 transferred to his name. The respondent after carrying out due investigation and due diligence had taken necessary corrective action to transfer the said connection to the rightful owner. On the facts of the case, we find that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in disconnecting the electricity connection. It is seen from the record that though the electricity connection was disconnected in February 2010, the petitioner wrote to respondents regarding the same only on 24.09.2010. The petitioner gave his address in the said letter as ‘Janadwani’, Valencia, Mangalore.

13.    Hence, we find no fault or error in the orders of the lower fora and the order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The District Forum was absolutely correct in coming to the conclusion that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent and, if at all, the petitioner wanted an electric connection he should have applied for the same afresh for his premises separately.

14.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”  

15.   Thus, we find that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us in the impugned order to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act.  The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed and we re-affirm the orders of the lower fora dismissing the complaint.